What would you think of the legalization of LSD and MDMA?

Earl Turner

Is it true MDMA makes girls really slutty?

Gbear

Useful.Idiot wrote: »

This is absolutely spot on. LSD, MDMA and Cannabis are all healthier to use than booze and fags in moderation.

If the government wanted to do something useful it would actively encourage people to move over to these substances instead of alcohol and tobacco.

Andy-Pandy

LSD im not to sure about (perhaps under much stricter guidelines) but MDMA should be legal. Its illegality is madness. It is one of the safer forms of drugs and has one of the most positive effect on its users. The majority of the legal highs that try to imitate its effects are very dangerous while the effects of MDMA on the body are minimal. Most of the deaths in the news that are reported as being from MDMA are due to either imitation substances such as PMA or from people not knowing the rights and wrongs of their effects i.e drinking to much water. The substance itself is beautiful.

ScumLord

Littlekittylou wrote: »

I do think there should be more public info on drugs and perhaps public testing to see what is actually being sold.

Would this be unbiased information or just more of the same drugs are bad, they do all these bad things, don't do them or you'll turn into a drug addict and die a prostitute on the street by the end of the week?

People seem to think a dose of LSD will send you off to another planet which just isn't true, a dose will just bring on mild visuals and a feeling of euphoria. You have to take a fairly big dose to completely lose the run of yourself.

It's fairly harmless, one of the best things about it is it just ends, one minute you're under it's effects and then suddenly it stops and your back to normal. Although I'd feel much better using mushrooms, LSD is a chemical made in a bathtub, shrooms are communing with nature.


I'm not convinced on MDMA, that can have a pretty hard comedown which just leads me to believe it's bad for you. The comedown can last a few days too. That may be down to quality but it's a drug your body will become accustomed to which just encourages higher and higher doses. I'm not a fan of it anymore, I think you go through a phase and then just get sick of it.

Schwiiing

If a bad batch wipes out a few Darwin Award nominees then society wins.

ScumLord

Schwiiing wrote: »

If a bad batch wipes out a few Darwin Award nominees then society wins.

So you want to keep drugs illegal on the off chance it kills people, I suppose that's worth keeping an illegal multibillion euro international drug trade around for.

Schwiiing

ScumLord wrote: »

So you want to keep drugs illegal on the off chance it kills people, I suppose that's worth keeping an illegal multibillion euro international drug trade around for.

If people had the good sense to not pump unknown chemical ****e into themselves then there would be no billion euro illegal drug trade. Sadly, a world like it is a fairytale.

hidinginthebush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tdcGmBefM

In all seriousness though, wasn't David Nutt fired as UK govts drug adviser after releasing and refusing to retract an article that found ecstasy (MDMA) to be safer than alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and all the rest?

Littlekittylou

ScumLord wrote: »

Would this be unbiased information or just more of the same drugs are bad, they do all these bad things, don't do them or you'll turn into a drug addict and die a prostitute on the street by the end of the week?

People seem to think a dose of LSD will send you off to another planet which just isn't true, a dose will just bring on mild visuals and a feeling of euphoria. You have to take a fairly big dose to completely lose the run of yourself.

It's fairly harmless, one of the best things about it is it just ends, one minute you're under it's effects and then suddenly it stops and your back to normal. Although I'd feel much better using mushrooms, LSD is a chemical made in a bathtub, shrooms are communing with nature.


I'm not convinced on MDMA, that can have a pretty hard comedown which just leads me to believe it's bad for you. The comedown can last a few days too. That may be down to quality but it's a drug your body will become accustomed to which just encourages higher and higher doses. I'm not a fan of it anymore, I think you go through a phase and then just get sick of it.

Actually if you read my post I say I am in favor of the OP proposal to legalize soft drugs.

Personally I would never wish to consume it. But I don't drink either.

But yes unbiased info. As in medical fact. Not some scare sheet but what you could actually expect to experience. Genuine upsides and down sides.

Like facts on alcohol.

Yurt2

Isn't LSD bad news bear for people with a genetic predisposition to mental health issues? E.g it can trigger schizophrenia in people who have a familial history of it?

In general I'm in favour of more liberal drug laws, particularly naturally occuring one's such as Mary Jane and 'shrooms and to a lesser extent cocaine.

Stuff made in a lab I'd be more wary of legalizing.

Thisname

Legalising cannabis-ok not such a big deal but LSD and MDMA?!? A bit of a no-brainer really...

Useful.Idiot

Yurt! wrote: »

Isn't LSD bad news bear for people with a genetic predisposition to mental health issues? E.g it can trigger schizophrenia in people who have a familial history of it?

Which is exactly why if it was regulated, there would be widely accessible information warning such people of these risks. The average acid dealer won't give you that warning.

Littlekittylou

I think we need to stop actually pretending we are pharmacists. I have no background to qualify my opinion.


In theory I have no issue with it. But I don't know a lot about drugs. Nor do I have any experience with them. My only experiences have been observing other use them. And that has been mixed.

In theory I have no issue with soft drugs being legalized.

downonthefarm

LSD would be cosmic.
Haven't seen it though in 20 years.
MDMA would be great too.
But moderation is the key but unfortunately not everyone can take it occasionally

Holsten

I think it would make complete sense.

Legalize all drugs, the war on drugs was lost before it began.

Johngoose

L.S.D. and people getting schizophrenia from it would be a great idea.

padraig.od

Party on Wayne

Johngoose

nm wrote: »

Although the thread title might seem alarming to some, after marijuana those two are probably the next logical steps.

LSD in particular is non-toxic, non-addictive, no documented deaths from overdose, and no evidence of long-lasting physiological effects.

Steps are already underway in many countries around the world lifting cannabis prohibition and at some point, a generation or two down the line or whatever it takes, the rest will surely follow. The Portugal model is already a roaring success.

I wonder how the current system of treating non-violent drug offenses in the same league as the likes of rapes and murders will be viewed then, with the benefit of hindsight.

L.S.D. is a very dangerous drug

mrkiscool2

It's a really tough thing to decide actually. On one hand legalising LSD and MDMA (I'm not mentioning Cannabis as it's so harmless it should be legalised) has positives and negatives. If we didn't have such a problem with alcohol abuse then I'd be all for it. But we do. It would take a massive amount of legalisation to make sure people didn't abuse them. It would basically require something like registering for a card and going to pharmacies to get your drugs.

However. legalising them would stamp out drug related crime and people taking harder drugs (the level of heroine use would almost certainly drop). So the real question is would the benefits outweigh the level of organisation needed? I'm not convinced. That said possession of softer drugs should be decriminalised (for personal use).

nxbyveromdwjpg

hidinginthebush wrote: »

In all seriousness though, wasn't David Nutt fired as UK govts drug adviser after releasing and refusing to retract an article that found ecstasy (MDMA) to be safer than alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and all the rest?

Sure was.

David Nutt is a celebrated professor, psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in the research of drugs and their affect on the brain.

Amongst other things he came up with this chart demonstrating for a number of drugs where they actually lie on the scale in regard to dependence and harm. He used this to highlight how the UK government's classification system was wrong.

He also published an editorial highlighting that horseriding (1 serious adverse event every ~350 exposures) was statistically more dangerous than ecstasy (1 serious adverse event every ~10,000 exposures).

His dismissal went to show that the UK gov was not interested in real fact and science around which drugs were the most dangerous, or rather they were, but only when it suited their political agenda.

(He was sacked as his classifications based on scientific facts around harm/addiction did not gel with the UK moving cannabis from class C to class B.)

So on one hand, we have the likes of him, doctor of medical science, pharmacist, etc - expert in the field basically, backing up all his claims with study and research.

And on the other we have the the likes of Schwiiing and JohnGoose in this thread - "xyz is dangerous full stop".

It's not so present day, certainly not in Ireland anyway, but hopefully in the future anyone in a position of power on these matters will listen more to the former.

Piriz

see the chart in the economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

interesting

cheif kaiser

Useful.Idiot wrote: »

Which is exactly why if it was regulated, there would be widely accessible information warning such people of these risks. The average acid dealer won't give you that warning.

You actually think that a teenager whose mates say to him 'lets go get some LSD and get off our faces' Is then going to read the warnings and say 'sorry lads can't take this stuff there is a history of schizophrenia in my family'

I don't think so!

ScumLord

Schwiiing wrote: »

If people had the good sense to not pump unknown chemical ****e into themselves then there would be no billion euro illegal drug trade. Sadly, a world like it is a fairytale.

People pump themselves full of unknown chemicals on a daily basis, I'd say you haven't a clue of half the stuff that goes into your belly. But either way drugs aren't an unknown, people have more than likely been using them since before civilization, drugs probably played a big part in the foundation of religions (many tribal religions see drugs as a direct link to god) Cannabis has been studied in depth for decades, the only reason they say they know nothing about drugs is because the science doesn't match up with the scaremongering stories. So rather admit that some drugs aren't nearly as dangerous as the people from the 1920s assumed they were, they just say "we need more research".

Over all drugs have had a positive influence on humanity, in many cases they have a positive effect on the people using them and the only thing causing harm today is anti drug laws.

Littlekittylou wrote: »

But yes unbiased info. As in medical fact. Not some scare sheet but what you could actually expect to experience. Genuine upsides and down sides.

Like facts on alcohol.

Medical fact will only give you harm though, the problem with government information on drugs is that it always comes off as scaremongering and can only be heavily biased in the negative. People simply don't trust governments to give straight answers anymore.

Johngoose wrote: »

L.S.D. is a very dangerous drug

Is it?

I had to look up this link to schizophrenia, I'd never heard of it before. It's seems to be based on some very shaky assumptions.

harry Bailey esq

I think they should remain illegal, if they were licenced and regulated they would be heavily taxed,and prices will skyrocket.Drugs are expensive enough as it is

ScumLord

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

I think they should remain illegal, if they were licenced and regulated they would be heavily taxed,and prices will skyrocket.Drugs are expensive enough as it is

Drugs are expensive because criminals can charge what they like, there are huge markups for just about everybody involved. If drugs were legalised and coming from regulated factories they would be much, much cheaper. Probably verging on half the street price if not more. Criminals couldn't possibly match the productivity of a legal business.

harry Bailey esq

ScumLord wrote: »

there are huge markups for just about everybody involved. Criminals couldn't possibly match the productivity of a legal business.

Huge mark ups at every stage,it would be naive to think the government are gonna look a gift horse in the mouth,To be honest my earlier comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek as I haven't had molly in a few years and I haven't took acid since the mid nineties,but in all honesty I couldn't see prices falling with legislation. I would be all for cannabis being licenced and regulated,but not because i could buy it in a store,but because i wouldn't be breaking the law by doing something that I have been doing daily for 20 years.In London I can buy an eight of top quality bud for 20quid,in Amsterdam where its regulated I'll pay 10-14 Euros per gram.Even after conversion to Euros London is still cheaper. Same with the dispensaries in the USA,they ALWAYS charge a premium.Legislation never means cheaper drugs,in theory it should, but sadly it doesnt.

ScumLord

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

Huge mark ups at every stage,it would be naive to think the government are gonna look a gift horse in the mouth,

They could tax the crap out of it and it would still be cheaper. A legal grow would work like any business, they'd be able to buy everything they need in bulk for added discounts, they would have purpose built facilities rather than make do with a converted house where they often have to ditch half their production equipment after each grow.

Business has many ways of reducing costs that criminals just can't do. I can guarantee you a legitimate business could grow more weed for less costs than any criminal organisation.

in Amsterdam where its regulated I'll pay 10-14 Euros per gram.Even after conversion to Euros London is still cheaper. Same with the dispensaries in the USA,they ALWAYS charge a premium.Legislation never means cheaper drugs,in theory it should, but sadly it doesnt.

Weed isn't regulated in Amsterdam, it's still illegal to grow the stuff so it's no different than the guys supplying a dealer in London. You then have the added expense of a shop front to work into your prices.

Even so the price you're paying in the tourist area of Amsterdam is inflated just the same as the price of drink in the middle of Amsterdam (or Dublin) is inflated due to higher costs of being in the city centre. You go out of the centre of Amsterdam and the price is almost half what you pay in the tourist traps, the quality is also much higher and they pay 15% tax on all the weed they sell.

Amsterdam isn't exactly a good example of what legalised weed would be like simply because it's not legal in Amsterdam, it's just a weird situation where it's openly tolerated but still just as illegal as in any other European country.

In America they've been producing very high quality weed because it's supposedly for medical purposes and some of it is extremely fancy. They also have a sellers market, there aren't enough dispensaries to match demand. They are also in the situation where dispensaries can sell the stuff legally under state law but federal police can still go in and shut down growers. I expect that to change now that it's becoming legal for recreational use and once supply meets demand shops are going to have to start competing with each other for sales. This will cause prices to plummet. If the growing can be regulated and legalised they can start to invest more serious money in the operation and reduce costs further.

Useful.Idiot

cheif kaiser wrote: »

You actually think that a teenager whose mates say to him 'lets go get some LSD and get off our faces' Is then going to read the warnings and say 'sorry lads can't take this stuff there is a history of schizophrenia in my family'

I don't think so!

Why not? any sensible person who is aware of schizophrenia in their family and sees warnings on the packaging/over the counter/whatever saying that if they took it it would result very very badly, so would most definitely think twice. That is if the link to schizophrenia is true.

Also as an aside I think the majority of people who take LSD don't really take it to "get off their faces". For most it's to engage a more profound, possibly even spiritual experience.

keithclancy

Yurt! wrote: »

Isn't LSD bad news bear for people with a genetic predisposition to mental health issues? E.g it can trigger schizophrenia in people who have a familial history of it?

In general I'm in favour of more liberal drug laws, particularly naturally occuring one's such as Mary Jane and 'shrooms and to a lesser extent cocaine.

Stuff made in a lab I'd be more wary of legalizing.

I think Alcohol is also bad for people with a possibility of developing mental health issues.

If anything Alcohol is far worse, causing reduced inhibitions, depression, excess weight, heart problems.

Also it might make you have sexual relations with a fat hairy chick

lazybones32

cletus van damme wrote: »

why is there this movement to regulate the behaviour of the whole population because a few people need to be saved from themselves?

It's madness.

A few?! Are there only a few addicts in Ireland now?....or only a few who are fcuked up because of good quality product?

Sisko

dont bother wrote: »

these type of "party" drugs, only lead to a life of living for the weekend, and that's NOT a good thing. you end up spending ALL your money, just going out, drink, drugs and it'll have you like a hamster on a wheel.... it's VERY hard to get out of that "loop", and when you're part of it, you feel like it's normal because everyone around you, as you said yourself, is either on them too, or can get them etc etc.

not a good thing. yes, they may be physically not too dangerous, but the effect it has on peoples actual lifestyles is where they cause damage.

i know people who used to be "friends" who are in their thirties, and STILL do all this every weekend, purely because it's THAT that has become the habit, and boy do they feed it.... every weekend... they'll go to any oul' sh!te that's on....

whatever they're seeking...

Sounds like alcohol to me. Or rather, how a lot of Irish people treat it.

Standman

Mary Harney banned magic mushrooms a couple of weeks after talking with the family of a lad who had taken some and then jumped off a building.

"Magic mushrooms are a highly unpredictable substance. They can take over your mind. It's like playing a game of Russian roulette", says one of the family members.

Apparently Harney was teary eyed listening to their story and was swayed immediately.

When you see how easy it is to get drugs like this banned, and how misinformed people are about it, it really seems like it will be a very long time before they are anywhere close to legal in this country.

MRnotlob606

We need legislation that would allow people like me to inhale aerosol fumes with legal protection.

Saipanne

Akrasia wrote: »

Ectasy is an awesome drug that does very little harm if used responsibly and if it is in a pure state.

Everyone should try a psychotropic drug like LSD or magic mushrooms at least once in their lives (unless they have a medical or psychological condition that would make it too dangerous). If they were legalised and there were clear instructions on the packaging, then using these drugs would be much much safer (ie, don't try to fly by jumping out a 4th floor window, take off from the ground first)

The vast majority of people who try LSD only do it a few times. Very few people use it habitually because the body builds up a tolerance very quickly so it's only effective if you use it very infrequently. Those that take LSD regularly, were probably already away with the fairies before they touched any drugs.

I'd love to be able to go to a pharmacy and get a little bit of MDMA that I knew was properly manufactured, pure and in the correct regulated dose, and then go dancing once or twice a year. It would be awesome. it wouldn't ruin my life, it would make it better.

Note to self. When on LSD, don't imagine that flying from a height is possible.

Easy.

efb

It's wasn't a great album but I didn't think it was illegal

Ubbquittious

Anyone know why LSD was made illegal in the first place? It seems like a lot of substances were condemned purely on the idea that taking something mind-altering is inherently bad.

stimpson

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Anyone know why LSD was made illegal in the first place? It seems like a lot of substances were condemned purely on the idea that taking something mind-altering is inherently bad.

What have you been smoking that it's taken you 4 years to consider your response to the thread?

nelly17

This thread literally is a flashback